I understand all of that. To be clear, I understand the way the system works. I’m saying I don’t like the system or at least the way it’s implemented.

What do you suggest as the fix then

ACC and/or PAC 12 have had teams in the playoff every year so I don’t understand the get their hopes up comment.

My argument against SMU is they wouldn’t even be favored against the Aggies or Longhorns. Does anyone think those two teams should be in the playoffs? No! But if they played in SMU’s conference they’d be undefeated.
As the system stands now, non power 5 teams should be doing everything they can to get into a power 5 conference. If an undefeated American team should get in (again as the system is now) then hell, my school Texas Tech, should just drop out of the big 12 and get into the playoffs every year! There’s more money in losing a playoff game than missing bowl season lol
I’m being facetious obviously.

I agree, 8 team playoff with any undefeated team included, would fix a lot.

None of this will matter though after Memphis beats smu Sunday.

I think expanding it to 8 would be better.

Then I'd imagine after a few years we will hear 9,10 and 11 cry. Expands to 12 and so on, I hope it eventually doesn't turn into the NCAA Basketball tournament with those silly play in games,

Agreed.

8 team playoff would be good. Someone suggesting 32 is just stupid. You really think teams that low are anywhere close to the top teams? The arguments are usually for teams that everyone can agree are good but 4 spots has to leave someone out. I dont remember ever hearing arguments for 8 potential champions.

If quality of wins counted, Notre Dame would have been excluded last year. Every year one of the 4 teams is questionable by “quality of wins”

Try again sir, the “quality of wins” ain’t holding water.

Undefeated is undefeated. Live by the sword die by the sword.

I was being hyperbolic about the ACC and PAC. Clemson clearly rules the ACC (and I’m an ACC fan, but I know the ACC sucks except Clemson). PAC has had a team in the playoffs two out of five years.

My point about SMU and UCF in the past is, they can only win the games on their schedule and undefeated should mean a lot. If you lose a game and there are undefeated teams, the undefeated teams should make it in. Unpopular opinion? Of course, but that’s the fairest way to do it, otherwise, the scales are being manipulated.

An eight team playoff alleviates much of this stuff. It allows the SEC/Big 10/Big 12 powerhouses to be represented but also allows other teams that beat their opponents to play for a championship, as it should be. The committee will still screw it up unless their hands are tied by some clause that disallows them to just throw in other P5 teams as at large bids and excluding teams from other conferences who deserve a playoff spot.

I think this would be a much better system than the current one, but I think the best system would be a 16 team format, which is used at every other level of college football, including the D1 subdivision, and works great.

Does SMU deserve to make the four team playoff spot? Probably not, under the current system and the guidelines the committee goes by today, although I think the current system should still weigh undefeated conference championship game winners first, and then go from there. That’s where my opinion on SOS up thread comes in. Undefeated conference championship game winners should make it first. Some years all four spots will be undefeated CCG winners. Some years it will be a mix of one loss and undefeateds, etc.

100% agree. And they didn’t win a conference championship game because they’re not in a conference, which excluded a Big 12 team in the past, I think. But their guidelines say championships won is one of the four criteria they must use, and they ignored that and their own guidelines last year.

I’d like a 16 team playoff, but for now:

Eight team playoff
Each power 5 championship game winner gets an automatic bid
Three at large teams
At large bids would be based on total number of wins first, then some sort of combination of head to head or common opponents and SOS as a last resort. And some clause saying they can’t just shoehorn in three P5 teams, but I don’t know how that could be written because I haven’t put that much thought into it.

Here's what needs to happen in FBS level play:

1. All conferences play the same number of conference games. ACC and SEC playing 8 conference opponents to the PAC, and BIG playing 9, and the Big 12 playing 10-11 automatically means most the ACC and SEC opponents will have another win, meaning more top 25 opponents, when in fact all the teams did was schedule a FCS team and notch another win. Inherently biased for the polls. We hear top 25 opponents all the time. Until someone realizes the schedule is fixed to allow more ACC and SEC top 25 teams because they all schedule 1-2 FFCS teams instead of conference teams, then it is an unfair conference bias.

2. All FBS teams should not get to schedule FCS teams, and if they do, the win should either be not counted or counted as a loss in the polls. Simply put, if you wanna scrimmage, do it preseason, not during the season. There's plenty of bottom dwelling FBS teams that can act as cannon fodder.

3. 8 team playoff, comprised of the conference champions from ACC, BIG, Big12, PAC, and SEC, plus three at large teams to be comprised of the next best three teams. I do not think automatically qualifying a +5 conference team is good for anyone because plenty of years there just aren't any quality teams. This would allow a UCF, or SMU to get there IF they prove they belong by having a great record. The first round of 4 playoff games will be held at the home stadium of the higher seeded team, or a stadium of their choosing if they don't want to be outside they could have it in a local NFL stadium or something, but it would still be a de-facto home game. This creates incentive to continue excellence all season and win a conference championship and earn the high seeding in the playoffs, but still allows for a slip up for great teams as they happen from time to time.

4. Expand the playoff committee to more than 13, as 13 can create situations where someone abstains from voting for a team due to connections, and with this small amount of voters, one vote can be a difference maker. So maybe expand to 26 or something, but needs to be much more than 13.

That's about it.

I have also said this before on other posts, the committee sucks getting the teams correct. When looking at the stats of the playoff games, the first round is won in a blow out (more than 20 points) 70% of the time. That means the committee is doing a terrible job of picking the top 4 teams.

I don't believe for a second the top two teams every year were that much better than the next two down. I know there have been plenty of years where teams "were better" but had the "worse loss" or "lack of quality win" or whatever popularity contest criteria the committee wanted that year. But to say the teams 1-2 should be killing teams 3-4 70% of the time is just lunacy. It just means they aren't getting the correct teams in there.

You’re telling me SMU’s schedule compares to this?

And the conference championship game argument against ND is stupid. Had TCU or Baylor gone undefeated, they would have been in no questions asked, regardless of ccg.
Likewise, if ND had one loss, they wouldn’t have gotten in.

Mind blown.

Reading comprehension Cbump.... last season Notre Dame squeaked by many times... and it showed in the playoffs

Agree. ND should not have been in last year.

My bad. I read that as quality of opponents. I don’t want to go back and look up the scores and I don’t remember many of those games last year.
But squeaking by on that schedule is much better than squeaking by on SMU’s.

You are contradicting yourself....they were undefeated and beat 4 ranked teams. Live by the sword and die by the sword, remember...

Which is it?

Exactly what I was going to say. If ND is undefeated then why on earth would they not be allowed in?

I'd rather see a one loss team that beat 4-5 ranked opponents than a no-loss team who beat nothing but scrubs. We all know SMU has absolutely zero chance of beating Bama, OSU, Clemson, LSU, etc.....

The committee's job is to pick the 4 best teams, period. Every year the best team has won the NC....I'd say they are doing just fine.

If SMU was beat teams 66 to 3 every week, they would be given more consideration.

It would help.

Anybody that watched football last year knew ND was a joke of a team. Yes they beat some "ranked" teams, but where they played them ranking and where they finished the season ranking are two totally different things. Everyone knew ND was gonna get handled in their playoff game, and boy did they. There should be a lot more to the selection than simply wins vs losses. Metrics showed ND was a poor undefeated team. Metrics don't account for popularity contest, they just look at numbers and the numbers rarely lie.

I am already loving the people that say LSU beat 3 top 10 opponents this year...no they have 1 win in the top 10 but they beat texas who is terrible, lucky not to be 4-4, they beat florida, and Auburn; florida being top 10 and auburn ranked currently 11 but by season end will be much lower (their only good win against Oregon first game of the season and since have not done anything worth mentioning except losing to LSU by a close margin). Rankings mean nothing until end of season, and SOS is impossible to determine until end of season. Its all part of the popularity contest that is the CFP committee.

Ttt

It’s unfortunate. SMU played poorly. Lot of mental errors. A game they should have won.

Quail hunters know not to brag on their shooting or bird dogs until after the hunt.



SMU Mustangs
7 10 7 24 48

Memphis Tigers
7 16 17 14 54